Welcome to the Wikipedia user discussion page for Ronz.
To leave a message on this page, click here.
*In order to make conversations go smoothly, please follow WP:TALK and WP:AGF when contributing to my talk page. Comments that don't may be immediately deleted. *Sign your post using four tildes ( -- ~~~~ )
Thanks for taking the time to read this.
Hi Ronz:
Related to recent edits to the entries for polymer clay, you can find relevant information at www.polymerartarchive.com
This site is attempting to record and document the early history of polymer as an art form and it is the only source for this sort of information as no historical volume has yet been written. Please check out that site and then if you think is it appropriate, please reinstate reference and/or links to Polymer Art Archive where appropriate. I do believe that readers will find additional helpful information at that site.
thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.166.139 (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Ronz: I don't understand the workings of Wikipedia and don't really understand how to do that:
here are a few links to Polymer Art Archive to make your assessment easier:
No indication that this organisation meets the notability guidelines. The coverage I can find is minor, not the significant coverage required by the guidelines
Could please, for each of the following links, provided a detailed argument for why they should not be included in the particle swarm optimization article:
On the talk page I see no argument more intelligent than "these links should not be included because there is no consensus." Clearly, if no one is interested in providing any well reasoned arguments to build such consensus, this if a form of circular reasoning.
Clearly, you must understand, that it would be very hard for me to convince you if I do not understand why you oppose inclusion. So I make another kind request to provide me with insight into your reasoning on this issue. —Ruud15:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably best if you didn't concern yourself with making assumptions on what others may or may not understand. If you're unsure, ask questions.
Maybe start by addressing what I've already written? I've made multiple comments on the dispute. I hope they make my reasoning clear. If not, do you have any specific disagreements with them? Would you like me to clarify them further? --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am undecided if this is the proper place to put this but I'm hoping you won't have to hunt too long to find who commented with my colorful signature. :) I saw your last comment at the AN/i and since the thread isn't getting too much from others I would suggest you taking this behavior to an administrator to stop the behavior that unacceptable. I could put a warning on the talk page of the user too, but it too has no meaning with me not being an administrator. I think you've hit the point where an administrator needs to make a firm comment to this user with no ifs or buts about it. I hope you are doing well though. Let me know if I can help. I am online sporadic these days so I've not really being doing anything useful for awhile. I do hope to get real life calmed down again to be able to accomplish more things again. Take care, --CrohnieGalTalk13:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to bet there isn't contraverisal content on other BLP pages? The fact that Barrett has been sued for his work, is relavent to the his bio, and any article linked to him. Regarding any "agreement", if not posted on the talk page; I will ignore it. You have to document it, not just say there is one. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISEGOOD WORKS22:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Would you like to bet there isn't contraverisal content on other BLP pages?" I think both of agree that following BLP is the best solution, regardless of problems elsewhere.
I'm having a great deal of trouble finding it. There's no easy way to find when content was removed from articles, and the talk page archives are full of discussion on the topic. --Ronz (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will honor the agreement sight-unseen this once, but I don't normally concur with this type of change considering the way I wrote my content. I purposely made no assertions even on undisputed fact in order that only the existence of the litigation be presented. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISEGOOD WORKS23:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still contend that non-confrontational content is warranted. The article should not give only the impression that Barrett's assertions are always correct or go unchallenged. The last sentence of the Consumer Information section gives the impression that he is a saint. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISEGOOD WORKS23:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Out of control editors
You said:
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users.
Sorry, I cannot comment on content, because Dougweller follows me around Wiki and simply deletes everything I add.
I improved the Deva Victrix page by adding a separate section for the elliptical building, as this is perhaps the most interesting building on the site. I also added a new section for the Market Hall inscription. And then along comes the mighty Dougweller and deletes the whole lot. Had Dougweller even heard of the Deva fortress before now? So on what basis did he delete it all? Did he even bother to read the update?
Not warring with editing. I just don't understand the flow. there are soo many rules to Wiki and i'm just learning. so to abrubtly block a newbie is like taking a bottle from a baby..(smile) Please work with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divageek2010 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for contacting me. I'm not the only one concerned with the problems you've been causing. Best to explain your situation on your talk page, and address the policies and guidelines identified there as concerns. --Ronz (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Ronz, I hope you don't mind me leaping in here...)
Divageek2010,
When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured to the right.
The main thing is, in any dispute at all, talk to the other people. Don't try to keep editing an article, if others disagree. Stop, and discuss it on the article talk page. Otherwise, it's chaos; so the warnings you got were nothing personal. Users are never blocked as a punishment, but instead, to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. If people insist on forcing their edits on an article without discussing things, then they are blocked. Please read WP:DISCUSS.
There is no deadline; if the page is 'wrong' for a while, whilst we discuss things, it does not matter. Once there is a consensus to make the change, then fine, we can make it - and, if someone edits it against some established consensus, without discussion, then they get warned.
If in doubt, stop, and ask for help. You can do that by either;
Thank you Ronz. I am in no way affiliation of the documentary. The documentary is a verifiable resource that explains the Tea Party Movement and the key players involved. It is one of the only credible mediums that explains this grassroots organization and I am using it as a reference to refer to some of the VERY IMPORTANT figures within the tea party movement. WIKI is like chinese to me really don't understand how it works, excuse me while i'm learning. I thought it was more user friendly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divageek2010 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's very overwhelming for anyone. You've attracted a lot of attention with you initial edits, resulting in a lot of messages to you that makes it even more overwhelming.
Take your time, discuss what you're trying to do, and ask questions. Everything you've been trying to accomplish can be recreated if appropriate sources are found. --Ronz (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I typically avoid highly charged political/religious topics. I've seen some of diva's edits and some of the various IP edits and want to screem... but I don't want to be drawn in any more than I have to. Diva, you might want to check out the AfD. I've worded my !vote deliberately to buy you time to edit it and gave you some guidance as to how to save it. Basically, provide sources that are from reliable sources and not trivial and the article will be kept. Trivial mentions or non-reliable sources won't save it.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!22:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hi,
This is Veerender from IIT Kanpur,India. You have sighted me as an example of think-tank from India.I would like to know the reference for this citation.
Please mail me on : veek@iitk.ac.in
thanks & regards
Veerender kumar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veeruvishwa (talk • contribs) 07:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stop while I give you time to explain yourself. Accusations of disruption shouldn't be made lightly. I await an explanation from you. If none is offered, I'll collapse the improper comments once again. --Ronz (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You continue the disruption by labeling his comments like that. I don't see any accusations of gaming in his comment. You are the one who needs to explain why you are collapsing another editors comments and putting non-neutral section headings over them. Please do explain, otherwise it really just appears as disruption.Griswaldo (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. You justify yourself after the fact? Come on. You can do better than this.
Someone brought up edit-warring and gaming. If those weren't accusations, then I guess it's all off topic and should be removed, right?
Please don't misrepresent the situation or harass me.
It's no a threat. It documents your problematic behavior. Hopefully, you'll learn to follow Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines before further action is taken. --Ronz (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there,
You removed my link to a movie about depression treatment and identification.
As I mentioned in the edit summary, the link I've added is a "service to the public produced by ERA-Net Neuron—a non-profit, multinational, EC-supported consortium on neuroscience research". It has no kind of deliberate advertising or promotion, whereas the website is not privately owned, nor is it intended to make any sort of commercial benefit, but simply to bring the work of the European Union research centre to the wide public.
Nevertheless, a link directly to their website may not be necessary. Will you accept the changes, should I leave that reference out? 85.65.243.51 (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for following up. You've already been notified by multiple editors about it. Your repeated linking to ERA-Net Neuron—a is spamming. The video itself is redundant to the material in the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Did I misread, or has he been editing with other ips? Seems like he's finding messages on the one ip talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aahh. In my memory I was merging your comment into the one that followed it on the Depression (mood) talk page.
The video is not about all mood disorders, so doesn't belong in Mood Disorder. I agree that the best fit is in the MDD article, where it is redundant. --Ronz (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC) <--I really have no opinion on the content, though my impression, having watched a few minutes,
Very blurry of me, I apologise. Anthony (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC) In fact your assessment of where it should go - if it were to go anywhere - has been spot on all along. Anthony (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see where you're coming from regarding redundancy, and I'd like to have that argument, but on WP:ELN, but I really don't see what the COI issue might be. If you don't want to discuss that here, that's fine with me. I'm just explaining my comment about WP:COIN: the talk page wasn't the place for that, that's all. Anthony (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan Flaherty reported me on Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts because of the edits I made regarding his Insane Clown Posse posts. I thought I did everything correctly, having reverted my changes when I realized the issue. Would you mind going over there and just leaving your two cents?RomanHistorian (talk) 06:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RomanHistorian, after Ronz reverted and hid your edits, you removed them from the article talk page. But you kept them on BLP, so I have more than sufficient basis for the Wikiquette report. If you revert the nastiness on both BLP and Wikiquette, and then leave me alone, I will drop my report. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ronz,
I contributed text to the Eames Lounge Chair Wikipedia entry several days ago, that we were going to supplement with photos to illustrate the defects, and methods of repairing. The text was removed the next day. What types of citations would be appropriate to better lay a foundation for the edit? I thought photos would do that, but didn't know how to add them, and requested an associate add them later. Did you save the edited material? Unfortunately, I did not. If you did, and think the material might be appropriately supported, I would appreciate your forwarding the textual material to me.
By way of supporting my expertise, my company is the only I am aware of that repairs broken Eames Lounge plywood shells, and has been doing so for many years. Clients have shipped them to us from New Zealand to Belgium, and other parts of Europe and South America. We repair several Eames Lounge chairs with broken lower back shells, resulting from shock mount failure, every month. We always retain the original external veneer. Our website shows part of the process: http://www.oleklejbzon.com/pages/newfurniture/modern_eames.htm
Thanks for your consideration. This was my first Wikipedia posting, so I am a neophyte regarding Wikipedia guidelines and standards. I am however, capable of scholarly writing, being a Yale College grad, BA Economics, '79, and look forward to any guidance you can offer. Thanks for your indulgence.
Thanks for following up on this. Welcome to Wikipedia.
As a very important aside, you need to either change your username or user a new account per WP:CORPNAME. I'll leave you some general info about Wikipedia once you decide.
Wikipedia keeps a database of most edits. The information is still available in the article history here.
I removed the information with the edit summary, "rv unsourced, promotional, not how-to" meaning I reverted the edit, the material was not properly sourced, it was overly promotional, and was too much like a instruction manual.
If you're still reading after all those policies and guidelines (yes, they can be a bit overwhelming at times), let me try to answer your questions:
Most of the material is not suited for Wikipedia per WP:NOTHOWTO, but might be appropriate for related projects described there.
I don't see anything obvious from your contribution that WP:NOTHOWTO doesn't apply to, so I'll respond in general. WP:V is Wikipedia's verifiability policy which is summarized as, "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." "Reliable" is a reference to the Identifying reliable sources guideline. So, basically, you need to provide at least some sources, and some of those sources should be known for publishing reliable or authoritative material on the topic at hand. There can be a great deal of leeway depending on the topic.
The Eames Lounge Chair article needs a lot of work. It needs more and better references. It probably has too much detail in some places, and not enough in others. It's a good article for a new editor to work on, since it's not heavily read or edited. I hope you'll consider giving it another try.
First off I would like to say that I am not spamming. I have spent days, months and years researching and I do happen to work for Nazmiyal but if the so many companies and other sites agree that we are the best source of information then why not place the link to the site? There are so few people in the world that truly know the history behind these great works of art and Wiki had no info at all until we started putting it in. We are the only people who take the time to research and learn so if you have an issue with my information then why not challenge the validity? I am not trying to sell anything - just teach! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Om2728 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. Let's take this one concern at a time, starting with the most important: You're at risk of being blocked for sockpuppetry. Please respond here. --Ronz (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop removing source discussions on noticeboards as BLP violations. If you are really concerned take it to the BLP/N and get some consensus on this first. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take it the BLP/N Ronz. I get it you think its a BLP violation, but you have no support in that claim at the moment. Time to get the support or stop deleting comments of other people. That's how it works at Wikipedia. I am well aware of what the policy on BLP says, but that's not the issue, it is whether or the policy applies here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Editwarring
Without taking a position, I can promise you that edit warring on noticeboards over arugable but not clear-cut BLP violations is not best practices. I have left this exact message on the talk pages of both parties - I propose that you both cut it out and reach some kind of agreement as to what parts of the comment are objectionable and should be excised. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm in the process of writing one as well. I'll add mine once it's further along." I took this to mean you were going to post a separate BLP/N request for input regarding the same issue. That is why I said "please do no duplicate the requests". Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where's your evidence? When you have some, place it on the article talk page. Meanwhile, don't remove tags that are justified on the article talk page until the dispute is resolved. --Ronz (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I hope you're not offended if I assume you're not fluent in English? There's a way to find translators to help you out, but I don't know where. Use {{helpme}} on your talk page to get some help.
Someone is an editor of a magazine? Someone, possibly the same person, issued a retraction about something somewhere? The ip you're concerned about might be involved somehow? --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have new messagesHello, Hipal. You have new messages at Diannaa's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:diannaa/tb}} template.
New biographies of living persons noticeboard design
I've create a new design for the biographies of living persons noticeboard that simplifies the reporting process and makes the instructions clearer. Could you take a look at User:Netalarm/Lab 3 and provide some feedback on how to improve it or take it live? Feel free to submit a report there. Thanks. Netalarmtalk04:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for putting the tags back into the Donald Leifert wikiarticle. I had put many of them in myself earlier (see here). Since then, I have been trying to help that particular editor, but to no avail (see here). I have even suggested that he work with it in his own user namespace. Another editor has been trying to bring the article into line with wikiguidelines and wikipolicies, but couldn’t really get the other editor to work collegially (see here). The more experienced editor would like to revert it back to a stub, then build it up in those areas where the subject acutally has some notability, namely his SciFi acting. (I don’t imagine he is sufficiently notable as an educator.) Thanks again! — SpikeToronto05:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping he'll avoid more personal attacks, vandalism, and edit-warring. If not, he'll be blocked.
I'll respond to good faith comments made by editors making an effort to follow WP:CON and WP:TALK. There's one so far by Scott MacDonald, which I've responded to, and the administrative comment by Griswaldo. --Ronz (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what it comes down to. I have gone through all the background of this issue, and it is clear to me that it's as bad a case of tendentious editing and IDIDNTHEARTHAT as I have ever seen. I'm reluctant to block somebody who contributes as much as you do, but I really need to see some sign that you recognize that the community does not accept your behavior here, and a commitment not to do anything like this again. Looie496 (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to respond, and I believe I have to respond immediately, so:
I'm giving myself a few days to change my mind, but I don't believe I'll be editing Wikipedia further.
If I return, I have a great deal I want to change in my approach to editing. I've got a lot of ideas for what to do, but I'll want to discuss them with others, flesh out the sketchy ideas, and come up with something that will avoid all the problems that are of concern, especially WP:TE and WP:DE. I'll likely adopt Jclemens' WP:CRYBLP, which I wasn't aware of.
In the meantime, at the BLPN discussion, I've deferred to the consensus that BruceGrubb's comments to FTN and RSN regarding Barrett shouldn't have been removed, and I've withdrawn from the discussion.
My impression is that although some of the people involved in this have gotten very frustrated, few if any would see driving you permanently away from Wikipedia as a good outcome. I don't even know if there is a great deal you need to change in your approach to editing; the main thing that comes out here is that you need to never again be so obstinate in rejecting a clear consensus of other editors, even in matters that are important to you. In the meantime, in the expectation that you will follow through on the things you wrote above (with the exception of retiring, which is not desireable), I see no need to impose any sanction at this time. Looie496 (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know for how long, it's been going on, but I've only received one message in the past week. I've not received a single one of the tests to myself or copies of messages I've sent others. I've changed my email, and at least my tests and copies are coming through now. Nothing yet from anyone else. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found content that violates the Wikipedia COI and self-promotion policies -- or is it?
Greetings Ronz --
I am contacting you because of our recent interactions regarding a warning against COI content.
I personally believe in the mission and integrity of Wikipedia, so I'm hoping to learn from the apparent contradictions I've been witnessing recently -- specifically how this understandable COI issue is enforced for me, but not for another similar user (or class of users). I hope to improve my contributions here, so am seeking understanding of the COI issue and it's enforcement. I'm grateful for any help or advice you can provide on this issue.
After your warning about COI issues in my contributions, I started re-reading the COI policies on wikipedia to improve the quality and integrity of my contributions. During this review, I checked my watchlist, and noticed various contributions I made were understandably removed by you due to possible COI conflicts. To understand this removal process better, I checked if others with experience in the customer experience management industry who had made contributions which violated the COI policy on Wikipedia had their COI contributions removed under the same process.
I quickly found an analogous user who violated the COI policy in many of his or her contributions. The user has been warned repeatedly about COI on their talk page, yet a large set of that users COI contributions still remain unchanged. Apparently the user, whose COI contributions were, imho, more extensive than mine, didn't have his or her COI contributions removed (like mine were). Could you help me understand why the many COI contributions from that user remain untouched, while the contributions I was told violated the COI policy were almost immediately removed?
Note that there's existing warnings against COI from Bazzer_palm on his or her user talk page, but his or her contributions have been removed. I find this confounding, since Buzzer_palm and I seem to contribute on similar pages, yet my contributions were removed after a COI warning while this user's COI contributions were not removed after a series of similar warnings. I guess what I'm trying to understand is why I had policies enforced against me, while another didn't have the same policies enforced against them for their COI contributions.
Thanks for your helping me better understand the COI policy and it's enforcement. I honestly want to contribute only the best and most reliable additions I can, which align with the mission and community of Wikipedia. Understanding how I can contribute tacit knowledge I have gleaned from my experience, while not violating the COI policy is very important to me, so that I can contribute the best I can here. Thanks for your helping me understand this apparent contradiction, and for your work maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia.
Hi Glen. Thanks for the comment. I'm sorry, but I won't be able to help you beyond directing you to WT:COI, where you can discuss the interpretion and application of WP:COI, and WP:COIN, where COI-related disputes are reported and discussed. I recommend WP:COIN. Looks like there may be cleanup to do with his editing, but if not they can answer your questions. --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
URBI article
Hi!
I just saw you made corrections to and commented on the URBI article (the framework, not the building company). However, I can't see them at all in the current article. Could you tell me what they were please? I'd like to not make the same mistakes again when editing.
I'd also like to know if you were the one who reported the article for not meeting the general notability guideline. I tried to pay as much attention as possible to it so please let me know what I did wrong. I'd really like to improve the article by making it as objective as possible so feel free to let me know if it seems too partial, etc.
You can send me advice and critics at roche@gostai.com.
Thanks a lot!
I forgot to ask you if you knew how to get rid of the "This article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. (September 2010)" mention at the beginning of the URBI article?
If yes, could you tell me please?
I really tried to make noteworthy changes that make the article more objective.
Please contact me at: roche@gostai.com
Thanks a lot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.144.210.105 (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you undoing all of my edits? I'm sure some are debatable like everything but I put a lot of work into this and you are assuming "battle" where none exists. These deserve the respect of looking at each individual case not mass-removing all of them.201.116.29.243 (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't undo all of your edits. No mass-removal was done.
I left an edit summary for each of your edits that I did undo. All the problems were already brought up at the ANI report I started. "If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and within reason you should not prevent them from doing so."
Please follow up at ANI. The feuding needs to stop. Hopefully, we can avoid a repeat of the past problems with feuding in those articles. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're right. It just looked like you did at first. Perhaps my language is intemperate, but I am sick of the same spam showing up over and over. I did try to add sourced material to some of the pages that didn't look self-written, but I agree that most of what I did was removing stuff. I will try to be clearer in the future, English is not my first language.201.116.29.243 (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Your subsequent edits have been much better. The topics you're editing have regular problems, so follow the suggestions at WP:DR if the situation worsens. I had hoped the ANI would bring more attention to the articles, but that doesn't appear to have happened. --Ronz (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK so I removed the 'notable member of seduction community' again from a couple of the pages. i wanted to tell you so we don't go back in circles. if you disagree i won't fight you. i just think that if as you say notability is not clear (I agree!) that we should say on wikipedia that they are notable. there are a few seduction people who are genuinely notable, mystery, nick savoy, neil strauss, MAYBE owen cook or ross jeffries (i dont agree but there is an argument and i won't touch those for now) and those notable people have pages not in dispute. the rest I think should be removed from notable members of seduction community until wikipedia members agree that they are even notable enough for an article.201.116.29.243 (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the problems we've had with these articles, I think we'll need to follow WP:NPOV more closely than this. Let's see how it goes. If there are problems, WP:NPOVN would be a good place to get others' perspectives on when to use the seduction community template. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something going on?
Hi, please see my talk page, whichis because I went to their talk page and told them to cut it out. If need be, feel free to email me but it's gameday again (hopefully our team does better this time than the last time I said I was going to watch the football game.). Whatever you do, do not respond to this editor who is poking and being uncivil to you. You did the right thing by removing it from your talk page. Take care, --CrohnieGalTalk17:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the game started off really good, we got a touchdown immediately. As a matter of fact, the first half wasn't bad. The second half, esp. the last quarter, well, to put it bluntly we got are butts kicked. What a disappointing game that was, again. Oh well, there's always next year, hopefully with a new coach. :) --CrohnieGalTalk11:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fitness Links for 20 Metre shuttle and Harvard Step Tests
Ron, why are you deleting these links that I have inserted. They are very relevant and provide procedures for performing the test and assessment. The links are not commercial in anyway and are a free service to internet uers. I notice there are links to "topendsports" which is a commercial interest. Clearly you have your priorities all wrong, or have not taken the time to follow the link.
Alex
Thanks for following up with me. Have you reviewed WP:EL and WP:SPAM as mentioned on your talk page? If you feel the links meet both, then please follow up on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 05:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
re:business directory page...
doesn't matter much to me "what" is on this page, but a real picky sort might note that if the page is "about" Business Directories, shouldn't perhaps there "be" some of same shown?
as you will note, I've tried to add the ones from my own bookmarks, and they've been labelled as SPAM (incorrectly I'd add) and removed.
which is fine...could I ask then that someone "higher" up in the wikipedia food chain figure out what "to" show here as examples of same....
seems pretty elementary to me, ie that the page should be about biz directories and then show some...but I'm not sure that all see this as
appropriate...
can you let me know on this...this is one of my first attempts at "helping" wikipedia be "better" and if this is not the way to do same, then
let me know...maybe I "see" this online boon to knowledge seekers differently from others...and I might as well learn this right at the outset
than to waste my own and others time too!
Sorry for the delay. External links to examples fail WP:EL and WP:SPAM. If there are business directories with their own Wikipedia articles, then those could be mentioned. Alternatively, find a reliable source that could be used as a reference for the article. --Ronz (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are interested in commenting, there is AfD for Timeline of a burrito article. My suggestion is to have individuals without frequent comments on the Talk page to form a proposal for the merger text (merge with burrito) with any valuable info from the timeline article. I think you might be good as one of those individuals. —fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!)(ExclusionisticImmediatist ) —06:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ronz,
Saw you deleted some edits I made to add Quertle to relevant pages. Not sure why you did this. For example, on the PubMed site, I find Quertle to be as good as any of the other alternatives listed. Was it how I worded the entry? As a new editor, I'd appreciate your feedback.
Researchadvocate (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)researchadvocate[reply]
Thanks for following up. Have you read the information on your talk page? It's the entry itself, not your wording that's the problem. WP:SPAM, and WP:EL are the most relevant policies/guidelines.
Thanks for the guideline links. So, adding the information without the link to the external site would be OK? Or is it better to create a Quertle page (there isn't one now), and then link to that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Researchadvocate (talk • contribs) 20:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you're trying to make sense the policies and guidelines. It's pretty overwhelming, but a worthwhile investment when first editing Wikipedia.
Without the link, other policies/guidelines apply that give more latitude. WP:V and WP:NPOV are the most important.
Sorry to keep bothering you, but in the interest of making sure I learn to be a good editor, would you mind looking at my revised addition to the PubMed page. I want to do this right. Tnx.
Researchadvocate (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)researchadvoate[reply]
No bother at all. If even a fraction of new editors would take the time that you have, Wikipedia would be much better.
--Chagedorn1 (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ronz: I am unsure why you reverted the Faith Popcorn wikipedia entry to the previous, and extremely negatively biased one. For example, the headlines re helping Philip Morris promote smoking have no basis in any of the sources provided by the previous editor -- Ms. Popcorn's participation in their media stragegy was not "verifiable." I left the original sources from the previous entry in case anyone would want to look at them. I did not want to take out anything negative, but merely to make the entry a more balanced picture of a 36 year career in marketing. From looking at the discussion, it seems as though other posters mentioned the negative bias but nothing was every changed or deleted, but you have deleted my entire post (which, since it was my first one, was hard to do :) I thought I had significantly improved the previous entry without removing anything critical, as well as providing additional information and links. Is there somewhere I can find my original entry if I want to correct it after you let me know what is wrong? Thank you, as I said this is my first entry and I am simply trying to figure out how to do this. Best, Curt Hagedorn[reply]
Thanks for following up with me.
If you'll look, you'll see I removed the Philip Morris information from the article.
The information you added is is all still available for access here.
Faith Popcorn is a poor article for new editors to work on. It is subject to WP:BLP which requires highest adherence to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It's poorly written, poorly sourced, and tends to attract editors with very strong points of view on what to add to the article who are inexperienced with writing to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.
Yes, I was reluctant to remove all the work you did to the article. There are a number of ways to work on it further. I highly recommend working with the copy that I made for you in your userspace: User:Chagedorn1/Faith_Popcorn, which has its own discussion page. I'll help you with it, and will help find others to assist as well.
I don't know anything about copyrights there. Right you are; somehow I missed seeing the reference. Less haste and more coffee will be my remedy... __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you work fast! I'm making some big changes to this article, hopefully involving an improvement in the reference list. Adding these books is a first step. (I added 'em, you removed 'em, and I've now added 'em back!) --Lou Sander (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made my own post there. I recall you've made other administrative-type contributions to this article. Please let me know if you also have an interest in the subject matter of AHP -- I can easily show you the new, shorter, more-to-the-point example before I start putting it into the article. (It's hidden on a talk page right now.) --Lou Sander (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This person appears to not like my additions. I have taken several workshops here by Dr. BW and they have been helpful. I was doing some research for my place of employment on complex trauma and found that page and noted that information on DDP was not there. As I commented, there is more evidence (one or two studies) to support DDP but none for Narrative Attachment Therapy, so if that one is listed DDP certainly should be mentioned, Yes? PranakanLegion (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in the US either. Ronz, this fainites continues to respond with bad faith and makes personal accusations, see talk page for Complex post traumatic stress disorder where fainites says, "As stated I believe you to be a sock of a longterm sockpuppeteer and banned user who repeatedly attempts to add DDP to articles usually with inadequate or inappropriate sourcing. DDP has one old study using inadequate methodology, plus 4 year follow-up. It falls far below any wiki standard required to start including it as any kind of mainstream treatment on either this page or the Attachment-based therapy (children) page. Fainites barleyscribs 16:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)" This is bad faith. I don't understand why he acts as if he owns this page and is do vehement about DDP. My reading of the standards for inclusion in an article is that with all the citations I listed it is clearly adequate. My edit is sources and NPOV. This fainites appears to be manufacturing criteria that have nothing to do with written wiki policies. PranakanLegion (talk) 10:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki standards?
Can you intervene or get an appropriate person to intervene? Fainites, who seems to see you as an ally, continues to violate wiki policies about not personal attacks and seems to have a very violently biased POV (see his latest diatribe on his talk page about me). Thank you. PranakanLegion (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The opinion from Reaper_Eternal is a bit vague IMO (especially in view of my later comment - not sure why it has not been signed). Specifically it does not state clear inclusion criteria (eg. what kind of third party reference establishes notability). So maybe we could summarize our views (so that others don't have to read lengthy discussion) on the discussion page and ask for other opinions? Grobelny (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional message on Burglar Alarm
Hi Ronz,
Thanks for notifying me on the promotional text. I am making a revision so it can abide by the guidelines.
A few hours ago I was contacted by User:Hans Adler and informed that User:BobBubba0005 had edited a section called "Santa Tracking - Santa Websites - E-mail to/from Santa" in the Santa Claus article. Predictably enough, the section re-hashed a lot of material that used to be in the NORAD Tracks Santa article and some of it is word-for-word identical with content from NORAD Santa Wiki. The section also contains six links to the NORAD Tracks Santa article.
Thanks for the response. I'm not sure that I've got the strength to go through all of this again, certainly not on my own. I would say that I'd leave it until January, except that last time the real trouble was in January, February and March.
There's no longer any doubt in my mind that User:Tomsmith0002, User:BillJohnson0003, User:BobBubba0005 and User:ProSanta0001 are all the same person. BillJohnson0003 was blocked on Wikimedia Commons for being a suspected sock puppet of Tomsmith0002. Tomsmith0002 was accused of using multiple accounts for vote stacking on Wikimedia Commons and seems to be trying to do the same thing here. ProSanta0001 is already suggesting that there's an Anglo-German conspiracy of Santa haters and seems to want a link to the NORAD Santa Wiki, amongst other thigs.
BillJohnson0003 has been blocked indefinitely along with his five confirmed sockpuppets. I have edited the "Ded Moroz" page again to remove all references to that charcater being a reasl person. I noticed that a lot of the references were to blogs, I added the "refimprove" template but perhaps there is a more appropriate one.--Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Ronz, I'm dropping by with a warm wish for a Happy, health Holiday! I hope you have a better year in 2011 than this year. Every year should be better than the previous year is what I mean. :) I hope you are well. Email me an update if you have time. Happy Holidays again, --CrohnieGalTalk17:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip. What should be linked1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. The links I posted are as close as you can get to "official". --Kenatipo (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close doesn't count here, and Freedomworks isn't close. Reverting again as you did is in violation of page sanctions. See you at AN3. --Ronz (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the topic, the links to collected coverage are probably useful, though I don't see the value of the Fox and CNN coverage. --Ronz (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just my opinion, and to my knowledge I haven't ever edited Tea Party movement, you probably shouldn't have marked those links as "spam". It would have been far better to discuss them on the article talk page instead. With respect - Kellyhi!01:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer not to embarrass editors so.
I'd appreciate it if you would stick closer to WP:TALK and WP:AGF [2], especially while ducking the real issues: the article is under 1rr sanctions, no editor can edit the page without being given a notice about these sanctions, and the editor made multiple reverts. --Ronz (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I got distracted looking at how to separate the template documentation from the template itself. Easy enough to move the template and add redirects as needed. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could use your expertise...
Hi Ronz, there is a discussion at this talk page. Obviously it needs to be moved to a different location. I suggested WP:EL. Anyways, we are trying to finally get enough editors to discuss whether findagrave.com is allowed in articles, it's now being said that it's ok for it to go into external links. I think putting imbd.com also should be discussed at the same time since the same reasoning is being used. I don't know where these discussion were held to say that they can be used in EL which is the reason I have no other difs for you. We really could use someone with your expertise of spam and the (in)appropriateness of items in EL. If you know where the discussion should take place or know of others who can help with this please ask them to come and discuss. Thanks for your time and I hope you have time to help with this too. Happy holidays, --CrohnieGalTalk11:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I responded concerning findagrave. My general rule of thumb is that the better the article is, the better the external links need to be. If an external link doesn't provide relevant, additional material of similar quality as that sourced in the article, then the link doesn't belong. Unless I missed something, I don't see anyone suggesting findagrave provides such material in this case.
This applies to the others as well, including imbd as you point out. Skimming through them, it's not apparent what additional material they offer. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Water Purification Edits
I noticed you did something to the citation's I added to the citation request on the Fluoride is also a known carcinogen statement on the water purification Wikipedia article. I saw on the revision history of water purification page that you noted take this to Water fluoridation and the original statement and citations I added had been removed form the water purification article. I spent a lot of time putting that list together and would like to know what has happened to it. I did not see the information on the Water fluoridation article and also saw that that article is blocked from editing. I am assuming that you took the information out of the water purification article and want it to go to the water fluoridation article but since the article is blocked from editing then how is that possible. Are you planning on moving the information. Please let me know. Thank YouOrangeLisa (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for moving the list to the water fluoridation talk page. I will now double check the list and continue to add the other sources to the list. OrangeLisa (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your input but my editing days here seem to be limited which is not unexpected with the fluoride cancer topic.OrangeLisa (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Your question about what topic to put the fluoride cancer list is one that I have been pondering and the fluoride poisoning article is a good choice but it will need to be written in a way that explains what fluoride poisoning is for people to understand this. Without going in to the details about what fluoride poisoning is from reading the current fluoride poisoning article I will give a simple description. Fluoride poison's at any level that it is ingested. Fluoride in high amounts like from a fluoride dental treatment can cause death within hours.http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30815FD3D5D12728DDDA90A94D9405B898BF1D3&scp=1&sq=%24750%2C000+Given+In+Child%27s+Death+In+Fluoride+Case&st=p In the child death situation the child swallowed the fluoride dental treatment and did not rinse it out and died that is lethal fluoride poisoning. Now fluoride given in lower doses as in water fluoridation also poisons it's subjects but the results of the poisoning take longer to be realized and the symptoms manifest themselves in various ways like kidney disease, bone cancer, cancer, ect.. Fluoride has the ability to bring quick death by poisoning or slow poisoning also known as chronic poisoning over time such as in water fluoridation. The chronic poisoning over time is caused because the body stores fluoride it can not get rid in the in the bones leading to bone cancer. Also years of the kidneys having to filter fluoride from the blood causes the kidneys to be worn out leading to kidney disease. The National Kidney Foundation and CDC say not to give fluoridated water to Kidney patients now but that information is not easily available. So it does not matter how fluoride is distributed it always results in poisoning be it fast poisoning or slow poisoning. The bone cancer and and other cancers that fluoride cause as noted in the list I made have fluoride being given from water mostly. One of the hurdles to get over is that the CDC only wants to do teeth with fluoride and they do not want to look at anything else so in order to protect the water fluoridation program. Water fluoridation for the CDC is simply waste disposal and the preventing cavities is a smoke screen to protect that. Fact is lots of information is available that shows fluorides harm but everyone is so miss informed and that combined with the CDC propaganda it is impossible. It will take education on the subject and Wikipedia is a good place possibly to do that if the articles about fluoridation are done right. And thanks for your input. OrangeLisa (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've already pointed out, the next step is to find sources that meet WP:MEDRS, or to classify any you already have by MEDRS criteria. One editor is already helping out by applying WP:SECONDARY first to the discussions at Talk:Water fluoridation. I've added the article to my watch list so it will be easier for me to monitor and contribute to the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Affiliate marketing update deletion
Hi Ronz - I'm new to Wikipedia so I re-reviewed the guidelines after you removed an updated I posted to the article about Affiliate Marketing. But I'm still confused about the deletion. Could you provide me a little guidance? Here's the insertion that was deleted: By 2009, two companies were offering a different kind of affiliate marketing, monetizing a publisher's content, in addition to ad space. While advertisers traditionally rely on the on-line version of display advertising for their affiliate programs, affiliate links differ because the links are embedded in website content, rather than displayed as advertising. Most affiliate links use the cost-per-action model of on-line advertising.
It's very possible that more experienced Wikipedia editors will see glaring problems. I'll take suggestions!
Thanks for following up. After looking at all the contributions you had previously made, and the notice already on your talk page, your subsequent edits look like more of the same: unsourcedadvertising to promote Viglink. If you disagree, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution covers the different options on how to proceed. --Ronz (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ronz ~ I believe the point made in Web Content is a more than valid one, different elements of the content vs. technology topic and the new role of MySpace, AOL and others has been covered by Mashable among others. I feel this adds substance to the conversation. Please let me know if you disagree with this assertion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesMonroeHaynes (talk • contribs) 23:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
Congrats! Now you'll have to start using this and tell me what it means! I don't know that I "review" other's edits. What is meant by that? Tell me when you've figured it out. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can see it at the article Sean Combs. Basically what it happens is if an editor edits an article and doesn't have the reviewers rights under a flagged article, their edits aren't seen by the public until someone either accepts or reverts the edit. It's actually quite simple and pretty much the same as we always do when we check an edit to an article we are watching. The only difference is with an article with pending changes on it, a reviewer has to accept or deny (revert) the edit before it goes live to the reading public. Have any other questions pop to my talk page and ask away or you can ask here just mark the edit summary to my attentions so I see it. Both of you have a nice holiday, --CrohnieGalTalk23:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up. I've seen the pending status on edits in articles, but never looked at what it actually meant. --Ronz (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Editing Science and High Tech articles
Hello Ron,
I have been very well acquainted with the history of the Web and High Tech since 1993, and with many of the personalities (Jimmy Wales is a personal friend) as well as with the many institutions that have come and gone. I have found, unfortunately, Wiki to be almost painful to read in terms of actual distinterested scholarship around some of these individuals and events. In the case of living personalities or institutions, there is either too much self-aggrandizement, or bashing from victims or competition. Half the facts are either presented or left out, with the effect of leading the reader to whatever conclusion the writer wants. So, I am going to try to cast myself into the fray and help with what appears to be a mess, starting out with some of the more controversial figures. Some of the pages, however, appear to be blocked from editing or seem to be having a lot of tampering. First, how does one edit? Secondly, how do you block the malicious tampering? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science&HiTechReviewer (talk • contribs) 18:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia!
Yes, those articles tend to be very messy. WP:PROTECT covers the details on the various article protection levels that limit editing to articles. The point of these protections, besides preventing vandalism, is to get editors discuss the problems and propose solutions on the article talk pages. Start new discussions, or join existing ones, and others will be happy to change the articles with any proposals that have gained consensus.
I recommend staying far from Naveen Jain until you get more familiar with editing Wikipedia. That article is quite a landmine. Best to start with an article not about a living individual, at least until you get some familiarity with the relevant policies/guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ron for your comments. Actually, I have successfully edited quite a number of Wiki pages in the past on other unrelated individuals, but they were unsigned. I was told that it would be better if my edits were signed, so I started this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science&HiTechReviewer (talk • contribs) 20:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of installation software
Hi!
I'am a manager of InstallSimple Solutions.
We develops InstallSimple - software for creation installation packages.
The past times you delete our record from a list of installation softwares.
Please do not remove our record, it's a not a link spam!
Thanks for contacting me about this. You shouldn't be adding the record at all, per WP:COI. There's a discussion on the article talk page, please join it. --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Diabetic socks
The description of diabetic socks is only partially correct. Proper and effective diabetic socks should be made of synthetic fibers not all cotton and the difference between diabetic socks and standard socks is not simply a matter of labeling or marketing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxisminion (talk • contribs) 12:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to start off with some of the former Microsoft boys and the history of early search, which I am very familiar with, and so can help put it into the right context with credible source material. Nathan Mhyrvold's page can be expanded to cover some of the controversies with IV; however, in looking at the discussion history of another former employee Naveen Jain, I see that someone else, I have no idea who, is working on this page making recent edits. However, I also see that you personally have reversed their edits, some of seem on the surface appropriate, others maybe not, but you (it lists you) reverted the copy to a far poorer state, which is not at all scholarly. I don't quite understand this. Accusations and personality quirks, etc., are not in keeping with biographical information, and I am not talking about it seeming like a resume, but it shouldn't be tabloid either. I have no personal or business connection here, but actively research and lecture on the history of high tech. So, what is going on here? THere is no edit button to contribute, and so, I am at a loss how to contribute to this page. Other pages don't appear to be so blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science&HiTechReviewer (talk • contribs) 18:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is under partial editing protection. See my reply to you above.
There's are very detailed discussions on the article talk page explaining the state of the article. Jain became rather well-known for his personality, hence it's mentioned in the article. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I just now saw your comment above. Missed it before. However, just some thoughts, as I am a historian in this area and I do not have any business with these individuals. I do know something about academic scholarship and I have many published books under my real name. In fact, I am doing this all as part of an experiment for a talk I am giving next month at the World Economic Forum, Davos, on how we are rapidly transforming from an Age of Information into an Age of Misinformation and Disinformation based on this kind of shotty reporting. I have personally talked to Jimmy W. about this issue. Now, I am trying to actually play with it myself to see the results. Best to start off with controversial figures. That's where I will find out what's interesting.
back to bio issues (Jain):
1. Issues relating to his leaving a minor employment (in New Jersey) because of his not "adjusting to the climate" are not interesting nor worthy of mention. Trivial.
The Seattle Times reported that "InfoSpace's success was built on the hype of its charismatic founder."[1][10] (this comment was put back in by you)..
Was this something " success was built on the hype of his charismatic founder" that was settled in a matter of Court? If not, leave out. Not factually based, even if reported.
Best to avoid character slurs or self aggrandizing statements, such, Naveen Jain is "smarter than Bill Gates," as another paper reported. Best to stay away from character issues unless it is something that actually happened and was substantiated, such as "Chapman confessed to shooting John Lennon." BTW, many internet companies faltered at this time around the world (Jay Walker, of Priceline faired even worse). it was the dot com crash. In this article, Jain appears to be singled out, apart from the larger context of what happened generally at that time (DEN too! There you had a company falter for exceess), a large part of the internet was built on "hype," and many companies like Commtouch got pulled into the whirlpool, even though they were not based on hype. One must always provide the proper context. By leaving out half the context, or putting in a misleading context, you can lead the reader to an inaccurate interpretation of what is going on. This comment is an interpretative statement from a reporter, not a "factual" presentation of events and therefore should be deleted.
This is the same with the reporting of his wealth. He fell off the Forbes list a long time ago. He is no longer a billionaire, so the way it is stated, you still think he is in this billionaire class of wealth.
On the negative side, there is nothing about his controversies with Intelius, but perhaps that should be saved for the Intelius page.
Factual error: States that Jain settled the case for $105 million, but according to the documents, he settled for $65. Interestingly, I believe that the Securities Exchange Commission, which oversees these things, came to his defense, but this is not mentioned, which is why I believe that settlement was lower. Again, context is missing.
This whole thing still reads like a resume, perhaps because of its form and flow?
Another comment on another area, the history of early search is inaccurate, because it is reported inaccurately, and referenced to a book that is highly inaccurate. However, the true facts of dates of search engines going on line can be verified via internet sources via caches on these dates. Magellan On-line Guide was the first to go on line, not the 5th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science&HiTechReviewer (talk • contribs) 20:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the brief response. Let's take this to the article talk page so others can more easily participate, and so we're not simply repeating past discussions.
His personality was a big part of his successes and failures at InfoSpace. It's still one of the most-documented aspects of Jain regarding InfoSpace.
All the lawsuits are tough to untangle, but we've done our best to do so, and it's discussed at length on the article talk.
Yes, the New Jersey info is trivial, and the billionaire info could be presented better.
I am actually not a "new" editor, but I appreciate your concern. My testing of this whole process is in preparation for an important talk on crowd-sourcing/quality of information using my own experience of editing as an example. I am well versed in the history of high tech and a very well known entity, but not personally involved with these people.
My concern here and now, however, is the inability of a wiki editor to correct factual errors, inferences, misinformation, and poorly sourced articles. My other concern is this biographical page appears to have a lot of "history" behind it for whatever reason, and it is therefore not being moderated properly. I would like to see the proper sourced changes made, as referenced earlier, and that this page can be properly edited and reviewed, where the changes are not arbitarily and unilaterily monitored and ignored/dismissed.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not interested in learning Wikipedia policies and guidelines quickly, then you're going to have little or no success working on any controversial articles. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar enough, and also familiar enough to see an editor who is unfairly tampering and managing wiki. A formal complaint has now lodged to have you removed from editing Wiki further, given your inappropriate handling of this biography and trying to use the wiki rules to smoke your own prejudices. 96.247.28.120 (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC) This is the sort of nonsense that I will be speaking about, and why credibility has been lost on this site. 96.247.28.120 (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you're simply looking for confirmation of the assumptions of your "experiment" here by blaming the problems you see in Wikipedia on editors rather than attempting to understand how those problems are actually addressed.
Take a look at WP:BLP. It requires strict adherence to WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V - all policies that I've brought up in our discussions. It also requires being firm about the use of high quality sources - as I've been doing with you and every other editor.
On top of the article falling under BLP, it's been disruptively edited by so many new accounts that it has been protected until January 2012. This puts you in the frustrating situation of not being able to edit the article directly, and having to learn Wikipedia policies/guidelines well enough to be able to convince other editors to make changes for you.
I don't think anyone can see how Wikipedia works if they don't take some time to learn the basic policies and guidelines enough to know which are the most flexible and when to rely upon their flexibility. --Ronz (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't go in looking for "confirmations," just wanted to see how the process actually works. I am well familiar with sandbox, etc. The issue was edits that were allowed in, and other edits that were not allowed in, and the what appeared to be a double-standard for what information got through the filter. Where the strenuous objections were, and so forth. This is exactly why I picked a "controversial" figure, as I said, that's where someone like myself is liable to find things that are the most interesting... The deletions and additions that I attempted to make were not subjective, factual, and independently verifiable. If you go to the "talk" page, you will see that I took some time to find actual verifiable sources (not self-proclaimed web sites, not mirror sites, not SEO sites, which there appear to be a lot of, and not speaker bios, but contemporary source references). Affiliations on Boards such as Singularity University or the X PRIZE Foundation are standard inclusions on Wiki. They can be properly referenced and sources. They might not belong in a philanthrophic section as I pointed out, but they are appropriate. The same is true with his winning the "technology pioneer" awards... (also which I referenced). Yet, to dismiss these, but to continue to allow the climate issue (which takes up 1/3 of the description of his personal background) is strange. To keep inferences from reporters, which are not verified, and out of context, is definitely not appropriate. I don't need to make the changes personally, but I would like to see when suggestions are properly made and referenced, that the changes do take place, and are not undone, dismissed, etc. That is what undermines the process. You may feel that you are being picked on, but it isn't that at all. I am sure you are tired of it, and I can understand why. As I said, when I was searching today for credible references, it appears that a lot of information on the web comes from SEO sites, so there is a lot of junk in the system. I am not ignorant. I try to be fair, and have a reputation as a published scholar, but let us all be fair and not apply a double standard in the filter. This is the consideration I would like to see. Let's get this done, so that we both can move on to other things. Thanks.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not ignored your concerns, and in fact, I went to great trouble to address them by finding the right source material. This is only about edits being made. They have now been submitted. Let's see you work your magic and take care of it, so that this page can start on its way to being sorted out. Anything else is just a distraction. Please do not ignore my concerns. Thanks. I am not interested, and you perhaps either, in continuing and back and forth about this. In the end, it is about seeing that proper corrections are allowed to be made, and that it is possible to correct misinformation and disinformation. Let's stick to that process. Let me know when you have completed making the suggested edits previously described. Thanks for your consideration in this regard. This is too much arguing over trivial facts and affiliations. The edits need to be done, lets get on with it, as I can't personally make them, and you seem to be in control. Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I may have time to make small, uncontentious edits if very specific proposals are made. No such proposals have been made so far.
I may have time to investigate proposals for contentious edits, especially if supported by high-quality sources. No such proposals have been made so far.
I think we'd both like another editor to come along who has more time to devote to cleaning up the article. Until some such editor does come along, I'll be spending most of my time elsewhere. --Ronz (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Specific proposals were made on the talk page. Please check out. I am emphathetic with your time. I hope you are emphathetic with mine. You certainly can spend a lot of time responding here or deleting material. In this case, please recommend another editor to make the necessary recommended changes or let's do them, so I can go on to other articles. Otherwise, the process has failed, and it will be necessary to bump this up again, and I don't want to waste any further time on this matter (neither yours nor mine). Seriously.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the type of specific proposal I'm referring to. There is nothing like it currently under discussion.
When it comes to controversial BLPs, I think it best to have lots of discussion and very little editing to the article itself.
I know of no way to find an editor to jump in to quickly address all your concerns with the article. I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone try, at least not quickly. --Ronz (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Search engine
I am trying to correct a serious factual error in the history of search article. The quoted source is inaccurate, and the real information, as it contains the actual date went it went on line is from the public record (McKinley owned Magellan, which was later bought by Excite):
[DOC] EXCITE INC (Form: 10-K, Received: 03/31/1998 16:57:44)
File Format: Microsoft Word
The inception date is June 9, 1994 for Excite and December 7, 1993 for McKinley. .... Inc. ("McKinley"), the creator of the Magellan On-Line Guide. ...
(1) The year ended December 31, 1994 includes the results of operations from Inception to December 31, 1994. The inception date is June 9, 1994 for Excite and December 7, 1993 for McKinley. The operating results for McKinley from December 7, 1993 through December 31, 1993 were immaterial.
How does one source this info on Wiki? This shows that the Magellan On-Line guide was substantially earlier on line than the other ones listed. As the history of this area is important, it needs to be properly documented. This is a public document from the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC). It states that the Magellan search engine went on line on December 7, 1993 and Excite went on line in June 9, 1994. It refers to both, as Excite purchased Magellan.
I don't know what article you're referring to. That said, the normal approach is to discuss the matter on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article on Search engines. There is a section on the history of search and it is grossly inaccurate, and the sources are incorrect. What I referenced above is a public document put out by the SEC, and which was unknown to the authors of the referenced source material, which is why it is inaccurate. The point here is to correct an historical mistake.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 06:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a very hard time believing they're socks. Probably just know each other. Meatpuppetry cases are a waste of time in my experience. --Ronz (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to speak with you off line, if privacy can be keep, on a free conference line. Then, you can google me, and see that I really don't have any connection to this guy we are fighting over, and you will see that the arguments I have espoused are part of a thread of arguments I have been making in general for a long time, and have nothing to do with Jain, but with how information is disseminated on cyber. In any case, perhaps some constructive dialogue here, so that we can try to understand the other person's position and work together to improve this thing, rather than bumping heads. You game? I promise a polite and civil conversation.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the gesture. You can email with anything you don't want to divulge here. No offense, but I'd rather keep my discussions within Wikipedia. I look forward to polite and civil discussions with you. --Ronz (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The link http://www.azerbaijanrugs.com/guide/guide_index_antique_kuba_rugs_carpets.htm is the only source in the entire web which is exhibiting 2000 antique Kuba rugs and carpets from different sources (museums, collections, auctions etc.) The rugs exhibited in this page are not for sale anymore. The page was created for merely educational purposes. Please, do not remove this link as the readers of this wikipedia article will definitely need this source to learn more about the subject.
Confirmed the following are socks of one another:
